LSAT 146 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q3

RC Question 3 Explanation

DISCUSSION: In these title relationship questions, you need to have a good sense of each author’s attitude.

• Author A thinks jury nullification is entirely bad.
• Author B thinks nullification is generally good, and can help achieve the goals of the law (e.g. line 43 “assisting the legislature”)

___________

1. The first part seems good, but it doesn’t match. The “?” indicates uncertainty. But author A was very sure jury nullification was bad.
    
   Likewise, author B wasn’t discussing pros and cons. They like nullification, and didn’t mention downsides to allowing it.
2. The first part is too neutral. Author A wasn’t summarizing a debate. They’re part of the debate, and are arguing against jury nullification.
3. CORRECT. This matches. See the two bullet points above. Here, the first title suggests TV cameras are entirely bad. The second title suggests cameras are good and will help the law.
4. The good/bad split of these titles is correct. However, the first title talks about the history of TV cameras, whereas passage A was about whether we should allow nullification to exist.
    
   Passage B wasn’t about the motives behind nullification. You can have good motives, but bad results. Passage B argued that the results of nullification were good.
5. The first title is good. Technically, the author of passage A didn’t call for a ban on nullification, but it’s implied.
    
   The second title is wrong. Inevitable doesn’t mean good or bad. You could think something bad was inevitable. But passage B argued that nullification was good, and further they didn’t say whether or not it could be avoided.